BREAKING: @AGPamBondi and SG John Sauer have filed an emergency application in the Supreme Court regarding their huge win in the USAID impoundment case, which we discussed previously. This is a big deal, as I'll explain. 1/
First a point of privilege. Having lived this case in the early days of @DOGE---with then-Acting SG Sarah Harris and many others---I really appreciate how the SG's Office frames the issue. 2/
Second, you might be wondering why @TheJusticeDept is seeking emergency relief in a case it *won*. Even though the DC Circuit deemed the district court's injunction patently unlawful, that injunction dissolves only when the DC Circuit issues its formal mandate. 3/
So where is the mandate? Who knows! It could be caught in en banc proceedings, the DC Circuit could be following its normal (slow) process, or something else. But for the Government, this doesn't work. It has a September 30 deadline to make decisions. 4/
DOJ's only recourse is accordingly the Supreme Court. 5/
Turning to the merits, for most of our history the political branches waged interbranch conflicts using the substantial weapons the framers gave them. The notion that judges would referee disputes between Congress and the President would have shocked the founding generation. 6/
But everything changed at one of our all-time nadirs of presidential power--the post-Nixon era--when Congress, among other things, enacted the Impoundment Control Act. That Act imposes a complex process for rescinding funds, as DOJ explains. 7/
But there is one thing that Act does *not* do--authorize NGOs, private charities, aggrieved states, or other private plaintiffs to sue about impoundment. And without a cause of action to sue, you cannot sue. 8/
Yet here, "a single district court supplanted that process." One district judge has commandeered the entire USAID appropriation and enjoined the Executive Branch to spend every penny--all without Congress authorizing the underlying suit in the first place. 9/
This litigation is important. But it also highlights the importance of procedure. DOJ *won* its appeal, but the DC Circuit's refusal to issue its "mandate"---an obscure term if ever there was one---now threatens to impose a constructive loss, costing us all billions of $$. /10
So once again, the Supreme Court is called to the field. This is a vitally important issue. Let us hope the justices act swiftly. /end
PS - I will post a link to the stay application when it appears on the Supreme Court website. Had to pull this off the DC Circuit docket via PACER and can't figure out how to post a full PDF to X.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Some more thoughts from me on this decision in CNN, focused on Justice Gorsuch's separate writing. I also want to respond to a point @steve_vladeck makes in the article. 1/
Vladeck claims it is unreasonable to expect district judges to follow the Supreme Court's emergency orders because those orders are sometimes issued without supporting analysis or with little supporting analysis. I totally disagree. 2/
Vertical stare decisis--the Supreme Court and the lower courts--is the relationship between boss and subordinate. The Supreme Court has direct authority over the lower courts; those courts must follow its decrees regardless of whether they "understand" the underlying reason. 3/
Another win for @TheJusticeDept before the Supreme Court--this time on whether district courts can enjoin the termination of grants that conflict with the Administration's anti-DEI policies. Lots of interesting opinions, worth a brief discussion. 1/
First, the ruling is correct and consistent with previous orders the Court has issued on the emergency docket. As we've discussed before, people who claim the government owes them money have to go to a special court to sue for money. They can't get TROs or injunctions. 2/
This is case marks yet another example of lower courts defying the clear import of the Supreme Court's emergency rulings. As SG Sauer explained in his application. 3/
Lets talk (again) about two tiers of justice. On Friday a judge enjoined the @FTC from investigating Media Matters, finding the investigation likely violates the First Amendment. This isn't just immunity from prosecution; it's immunity from *investigation.* Unpacked below. 1/
This case arises from the notorious advertiser boycott of online platforms. It's easy to forget, but not long ago many companies refused to advertise on platforms--in particular, @X--unless those platforms suppressed, eg, conservative speech or true information about Covid. 2/
This boycott, if real, likely violated the antitrust laws. And the nonprofit Media Matters is alleged to have been a ringleader in the boycott. That's the basic allegation @elonmusk's suit made and it is facially credible. 3/
The D.C. Circuit released a significant opinion today in one of the earliest major @DOGE cases--the litigation over the reduction of USAID. It's another big legal win for @realDonaldTrump and @DOGE. It also has broader implications, as I'll explain. 1/
To recap, there were two major challenges to the winddown of USAID--one regarding terminated employees, the other regarding terminated grants and contracts. Both have now resolved largely in the Administration's favor. 2/
The Administration won the employee case in the district court before Judge Nichols, a Trump Appointee from 45. (Judge Nichols entered a TRO but ultimately denied a PI, which effectively ended the case.) The terminations took effect and that case has been out of the news. 3/
Another emergency filing in the Supreme Court last night by @TheJusticeDept, this time because a district court has commandeered immigration enforcement in Los Angeles. There are multiple serious issues here, and emergency relief seems proper. 1/
To set the stage: ICE Agents need "reasonable suspicion" that a person is here illegally before they can stop the person for immigration-enforcement purposes. That is a low bar. Basically is it reasonable under the circumstances to suspect someone is an illegal alien? 2/
Here, the district court forbade ICE Agents working in greater Los Angeles from considering four extremely broad attributes in forming suspicions about potential illegal aliens. As @TheJusticeDept explains below. 3/
On the heels of DC attempting to disbar @JeffClarkUS, a dark money group has escalated further--filing bar complaints against little-known lawyers who defend the Administration in court. This is a frontal assault on the Executive Branch. It must be defeated at all costs. 1/
Lets set the stage. First, the subjects of the complaints are the political appointee who has my old job--Deputy Assistant AG for Federal Programs, in @TheJusticeDept parlance--and two career lawyers. These are not high profile people accustomed to harassment. 2/
Second, the complainant appears to be a random group funded by left-wing dark money. (The "Legal Accountability Center"; Orwell would be proud.) It is not a former client or current litigant. It's seemingly some activists paid to read X all day, then harass government lawyers based on public reporting. 3/